Re: Trump Thread
As I think about it, there are several problems with this idea.Originally Posted by drone
Past the geographic dispersion of unauthorized residents they are fairly diversified throughout the labor force. Most of these are all manner of unskilled positions, but hundreds of thousands do skilled or white-collar work. Enforcement mechanism would presumably be onerously extensive to have much effect.
The majority of the aliens are thought to have been residents of the US for at least 10 years, with almost all having spent years in the country. To the extent that there is a crackdown on 'johns', adaptation on both ends may encourage a large proportion of the unauthorized residents to remain. Some may leave the workforce entirely and pool resources with working family or community members, especially those with citizenship/legal residence or other authorization to work; those who end up like this act as an economic drain.
Economic consequences to either the departure or the jobless residence of aliens will be severe. For non-capital intensive work, likely you see employers simply downsizing, exiting their sector/industry, or quitting altogether. As aggregate demand decreases and jobs are eliminated, putative compensatory upward pressure on citizen labor's wages will not materialize. In the good cases we should expect offshoring/outsourcing, or accelerated automation, rather than replacement with legal labor. In the worst cases, unskilled labor will no longer be buoyed by a wage/conditions floor in the form of a separate labor class, and will see their own wages and standards decline as employers tighten their belts by passing increased costs on to legal labor.
Let me clarify that I meant my previous post with respect to discouraging new crossings or new attempts to cross; I don't consider mass reductions (direct or induced) of the pre-existing unauthorized population to be a viable option. SF or drone, can you think of policy that would discourage new crossings or new attempts to cross in the face of or to a greater extent than global economic trends?
The handicap is, as always, no mass killings at the border, and no indirect dis-incentivization through denial of public services to pre-existing aliens ("it is not sufficient justification that a law saves money").
Reply With Quote
; it includes states without a Muslim majority (N.Korea for example) and looks like its headed straight to court
Bookmarks